At this very moment, the Apostolic nuncio, Msgr.Christophe Pierre is in Sahuayo (the hometown of José Sánchez del Rio) Mexico, to officially close the Cause for the canonization of this martyr for the faith. Joselito will be proclaimed a saint!
I have received notice that it is not known how long it will take to set a date for his canonization. Msgr. Pierre will be returning to Rome with the documentation to turn it over to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. We hope it will be soon.
“Look for instance at the reaction of conservative Catholics to the pope’s phone call to Jaquelina Lisbona, a woman in Argentina civilly married to a divorcee, in which Francis supposedly counseled her to practically ignore Church teaching on divorce, adultery, confession, and Holy Communion.
“Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture speculated, “[F]or all we know, she and her husband are now living as brother and sister, in which case there would be no reason why she could not resume receiving the sacraments.” Of course, if this were the case the parish priest could have determined this without the extraordinary phone call from Christ’s vicar.
“Before deleting it (perhaps in embarrassment), Jimmy Akin reminded his readers at the National Catholic Register that the pope has the power to act as the Church’s chief legislature and to execute judgments immediately, and so therefore he could annul the first marriage and radically sanction the second, implying all this could be done over the phone.”
I know that most people do not like to click on a link to get to an article. But, I guarantee you, it would be worth your while to do so on this one. I certainly enjoyed it. And surprise, surprise – the author is not even a “rad trad”. He is the founder and editor of The Slurve, a newsletter about…………… baseball!
writes:
Catholics must learn to resist their popes — even Pope Francis
It would take too much time for me to translate Antonio Socci’s recent article on another very eery incident that occurred before the canonizations of the two popes, but this synopsis suffices to inform readers of that episode. If you can read Italian, click on to the link for the entirety which can be found here.
Photo credit: Libero Quotidiano
Antonio Socci in an article published by the newspaper Libero reported a mysterious incident that happened on April 26, last Saturday, the day before the canonization of the two Popes. The report is about the Madonna of Civitavecchia, a statue of the Virgin Mary brought from Medjugorje to the Italian town years ago, and which has been seen to shed tears of blood on several occasions. On that Saturday, the former Bishop of Civitavecchia, Msgr. Grillo, sent a crown – which had been inscribed with the coat-of-arms of Pope Francis – to be placed on the head of the statue. No sooner had the statue been crowned, when the crown immediately fell off, hitting the left hand of the Madonna which had been holding a rosary, a rosary of the late Pope Paul II. The hand, together with the rosary fell off. Socci was quick to assess this mysterious and disturbing incident as a sure bad omen for the canonizations. The statue is associated with John Paul II, in that he apparently had been very attentive to the Medjugorje apparitions which as of yet, the Church does not officially recognize. When he was still alive, after learning that Msgr. Grillo wanted to destroy the statue, the Pope had asked him not to do so. According to some, the Polish Pope had traveled several times to pray before the statue. Several scientific studies have shown that blood coming out from the statue is human blood, always of the same type.
Because of the copyright, I am limited to 50 words from this essay by Marielena Montesino de Stuart. I tell you, make it a point to click on the link and read the entire entry! It does not take long to read. Here is a sample from: http://romancatholicworld.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/not-a-good-mix-john-xxiii-john-paul-ii-and-i/
“..I did not have Catholicism poured into my brain on a cruise ship lecture …
I have spent my…life watching the Church’s modern administrators abandoning the traditions, richness and beauty of the Church…
..I do not have to like the actions of John XXIII, John Paul II, Francis– or for that matter…”
Yesterday I received the relics I had requested of Sr. Lucia of Fatima! Needless to say, I was overjoyed! I believe it took something like 2 months to receive them.
Enclosed was a card with a hand-written message, which in part, reads (It is hard to make out the writing but I think I have deciphered it correctly.):
______________________________________________________
Dear Señora
Con mucho gusto le mandamos estas reliquias de nuestra Hermana Lucia, cuyo proceso de Beatificacion esta en curso. Nos son concedidas muchas gracias atribuidas a su intercesion. Lo creemos!
Si le interesa, en la internet puede…….
______________________________________________________
Translation: It is with much pleasure that we send you these relics of our Sister Lucia, whose beatification process is open. Many graces attributed to her intercession are granted to us. We believe it!
There is more on the back of the card, but it is a personal note to me which shall remain private.
Here is what the relic cards look like. I have photocopied the front of the note for all to see.
Sr. Lucia is a saint. She is in heaven because our Lady promised to take her there! Pray with confidence to her. She is more than favorable to those who ask for her intercession.
The news has spread throughout the whole world. A gigantic crucifix has collapsed and killed a young man of 21 years.
The bent-shaped crucifix in the northern Italian town of Cevo stood 98 feet high and had been erected at the spot in 1998 in honor of John Paul II. Three days before the canonization proceedings for the late Pope, the crucifix fell, crushing Marco Gusmini.
The young man who was a guide for a group of youth on a parish tour, just happened to live on a street named after the other pope who will also be canonized this coming Sunday – Via Givovanni XXIII.
How terribly sad and tragic. Our prayers are being offered for the repose of his soul. The family most certainly will be in no mood to celebrate the canonizations.
More pictures (credit for the above two, go to Pagina Catolica.) and video can be found at this link, although in Spanish and Italian: Pagina Catolica.
The crucifix was a work of Enrico Job. If you ask me, it was a piece of mockery. Instead of a triumphant Christ, the image depicted our Savior as falling downward. Such ugliness cannot be of God.
The splendor associated with the true worship of God is the inheritance of every Catholic.
The Cenacle in which Our Lord celebrated the first Mass was a beautifully furnished upper chamber located in the affluent section of the city of Jerusalem. Its mere elevation designated it for use on special occasions above and beyond mundane activity. Why did our Lord expressly desire that the place for this singular Pasch should be richly adorned? Bossuet provides us with the answer: “The Evangelists do not remark,” says Bossuet, “that this was His ordinary custom on other Pasches. The Holy Fathers also say that this adornment was connected with the Institution of the Eucharist. Jesus Christ desired to show us with what care places consecrated to the celebration of this Mystery should be decorated. It is only in this circumstance that He did not wish to appear poor.”
—————————-
Sources:
Rev. Croft’s, THE FULLNESS OF SACRIFICE, pg. 139: “The site of the Upper Room formed part of the renowned Mount Sion…It was fitting that the everlasting testament in the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ should be proclaimed from the Holy Mount.”
Rev. Meagher’s HOW CHRIST SAID THE FIRST MASS, pg. 229-231: “…over the tombs of the great kings rose…the buildings called the Cenacle….it was the highest, largest, finest and holiest room, except the temple. It was beautifully furnished with carpets, rugs, tapestries – its walls were decorated, its furniture most costly…..In the time of Christ, round the Cenacle rose the homes of richest Jews…”
Rev. A. Tesniere’s article which quotes Bossauet -“Medit. sur l’Evang,” 1st day, pg. 57, “The Institution of Holy Communion” in Vol. XX-No. 1, 1917, THE SENTINEL OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT: “The Evangelists do not remark…”
Some years ago, I was introduced to the Divine Mercy prayers by someone whom I considered to be solid in the faith. (Much later, I found out this person was into sensational private revelations such as “Little Pebble”!) I saw nothing wrong with the prayers, so I started praying them. I never bothered to look into the origins, but little by little, here and there, I would hear or read things that didn’t sound quite right to me. What I learned was enough to convince me to discard the Divine Mercy devotions.
Today on FB, someone posted the following article by Fr. Perez. In it he articulates his concerns over DM, and he warns against the thrice-condemned revelations of St. Faustina. I though it worth sharing (You can follow the link to where it is posted on TIA):
Church Reasons to Condemn the
Divine Mercy Devotion
Several readers have addressed questions to TIA asking orientation about the Divine Mercy devotion. Since we knew Msgr. Perez had addressed the topic some months ago, we invited him to write an article about it for our website. Since he is busy with many pastoral duties and unable to write, he sent us both the tape and text of that sermon (April 21, 2013) for us to edit and post at our convenience.
We transferred its spoken language to written language and inserted title and subtitles. Although it is a long article, we thought it would be better to offer it to our readers in a single piece, rather than to break it into several articles. TIA
My dear faithful, today I want to say a few words about the Divine Mercy devotion. I receive many questions about this subject every year and now I want to address the topic. As a source reference I am using principally an issue of The Angelus magazine (June 2010). This research comes from Fr. Peter Scott. Since he provided most of what I needed for this talk, birettas off’ to Fr. Scott.
The Divine Mercy devotion was re-launched by John Paul II. During his long pontificate he established a feast day in honor of this devotion. During his homily at the canonization of Sr. Faustina on April 30, 2000, he declared that the Second Sunday of Easter would henceforth be called Divine Mercy Sunday.
Consequently, every year on the Sunday following Easter, which is called Low Sunday – in Latin it is called Dominica in Albis, Sunday in White – I am asked this question, “Father, why don’t we celebrate the Divine Mercy Sunday?”
Divine mercy
A typical Divine Mercy image remindful of a whirling dervish
Now, the easy answer would be, “We don’t do it because it’s not in the traditional calendar.” But, then, the feast of Padre Pio also is not in the traditional calendar, but we celebrate it. We do it as prescribed in the Common of the Missal, which allows us to honor recently canonized saints. So, the question returns: Why don’t we celebrate the Divine Mercy Sunday?
I have analyzed the prayers of the Divine Mercy devotion and found nothing wrong with them. But there is something wrong with what surrounds this new devotion.
Let me acknowledge that there are persons, possibly even some persons here, who have received graces from doing the Divine Mercy devotion. That is not an indication that the devotion itself is necessarily from Heaven.
Remember God always answers our prayers. You always receive some grace by your prayers. For example, let’s imagine you made a pilgrimage to visit the burial place of a saint. You made the pilgrimage and thought you were kneeling at the correct grave venerating that saint. In fact, however, he was not buried in that cemetery, but in a church nearby. Nonetheless, God gives you graces because of your effort and your desire to please Him and make reparation for your sins.
You made that pilgrimage; you will not leave it without grace. God does not take a position like, “Well, you’re at the wrong grave. Sorry, you travelled 6,000 miles for nothing and now you receive nothing.” No, God will always answer your prayers. So, please, remember when you hear people say, “Well, I have received graces from this devotion.” This in itself is not an indication that the devotion is from Heaven. Certainly the graces are always from Heaven. But the devotion may not be.
Condemnations of this devotion
What is wrong with the Divine Mercy devotion?
First, when this devotion fell under the attention of Pius XII, he was concerned not with the prayers of the devotion, but with the circumstances of the so-called apparitions to Sr. Faustina and their content. That is, he was concerned with what Our Lord supposedly told Sr. Faustina and what he told her to make public.
Pius XII, then, placed this devotion, including the apparitions and the writings of Sr. Faustina on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books). That list no longer exists, since it was formally abolished on June 14, 1966, by Paul VI. On the one hand, it is unfortunate that it no longer exists. But, on the other hand, if that list were to exist today it would be so vast that it would fill this room. Practically everything that is written today has something objectionable to the Catholic Faith.
John Paul II divine Mercy devotion
JPII supported the thrice-condemned devotion
So, Pius XII put the writings of Sr. Faustina on the Index of Prohibited Books. That meant that he considered that their content would lead Catholics astray or in the wrong direction.
Next, came other prohibitions made by Pope John XXIII. Twice in his pontificate, the Holy Office issued condemnations of the Divine Mercy writings.
Today the Holy Office is called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But before it was called the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Its name has changed over several years.
This Office – placed under the direct control of the Pope – is responsible for maintaining the purity of the doctrine and, therefore, it watches over the dissemination of different documents in the Church.
If the Pope wants to correct the faithful on a particular topic, he usually does this through the Holy Office. So, the proclamations, declarations and documents issued by the Holy Office may be seen as coming from the Pope himself.
Not once, but twice under Pope John XXIII, this particular devotion was condemned through the Holy Office. The first condemnation was in a plenary meeting held on November 19, 1958. The declaration from the Holy Office issued these three statements about this devotion:
1. There is no evidence of the supernatural origin of these revelations. This means that the members of the Holy Office examined the content and decided that there was nothing there to indicate the apparitions were supernatural. In an authentic apparition – Our Lady of Lourdes or Our Lady of Fatima, for example – you can look at the content and affirm it can not be definitively said they are of divine origin, but there is enough evidence to say that it is possibly so. On the other hand, in the Divine Mercy apparitions, they said definitively that there is no evidence whatsoever that they are supernatural. This translates, “We do not think that these apparitions come from God.”
2. No feast of Divine Mercy should be instituted. Why? Because if it is based on apparitions that are not clearly coming from God, then it would be rash and temerarious to institute a feast in the Church based on something that is a false apparition.
3. It is forbidden to disseminate writings propagating this devotion under the form received by Sr. Faustina, as well as the image typical of it. So, it was forbidden to even publish the image of Our Lord as Divine Mercy.
Now, you have all seen this image, even if in passing, and you would know and recognize it. It shows a strange picture of Jesus that makes me uneasy. I cannot really tell you why. I do not like it. I don’t like the face, I don’t like the gesture, I don’t like the posture, I don’t like anything. This was my first impression of this image. I don’t want it around because it is, for lack of a better term, creepy to me when I look at it.
The image shows multicolored rays, I think they are red, white and blue, coming from His chest region – no heart, just these rays. You have all seen this. Well, that was the image that was forbidden to be published or spread.
On March 6, 1959, the Holy Office issued a second decree on the order of Pope John XXIII. It forbade, once again, spreading the images of Divine Mercy and the writings of Sr. Faustina propagating this devotion. It also stated that it was up to the bishops to decide how they were going to remove the images that had already been displayed for public honor.
I do not need to say much more about these declarations. Two Popes strongly warned the faithful of a danger in this devotion. Pius XII put it on the Index; John XXIII issued two condemnations through the Holy Office about the spiritual danger this devotion presented to the faithful. Not much more needs to be said on that.
Principal error: It presents an unconditional mercy
Let me present you with a parallel thought.
Sacred Heart of Jesus
Above, a majestic Jesus with the halo of divinity and a well-defined Sacred Heart gives a clear blessing; below, a worker-like Jesus without the proper halo or a heart makes a gesture more like a “hello” than a blessing
Consider the true image of Christ Our Savior. Probably the most symbolically rich and accurate representation of Him, besides the Crucifix, is the image of the Sacred Heart, because the image of Our Lord with the Sacred Heart summarizes the whole theology of Redemption.
They pierced His Hands, His Feet and His Sacred Heart; the crown of thorns encircles the Heart, which burns with love for man. This was the price He paid, the sacrifice He made for our redemption. He offered Himself because of His burning love for us despite the fact we are ungrateful creatures who rebelled against our Creator. Think about it. He created us and then we nailed Him to a cross even though He was God and completely innocent of any guilt. So, the Sacred Heart encapsulates all this.
In the images of the Sacred Heart, He points to this symbolic font of love and mercy for us. The devotions to the Sacred Heart always suppose reparation for our sins. We are sinners, we must make reparation. Despite the promises from Our Lord and the fact that He paid an infinite price for our Redemption, we must make reparation. We should always do penance for our sins and make various kinds of reparation.
Now, consider the image of Our Lord representing the Divine Mercy. It is an imitation of the Sacred Heart without the heart. When you pay attention, you notice that in the image there is no heart. There are simply rays coming out of a point above His waist. This symbolizes the error of the Divine Mercy devotion. It preaches that we can expect an unconditional mercy with no price to be paid whatsoever, with no obligations whatsoever. This is not the message of Christ.
Christ is merciful. Time and time again, His mercy pardons our repeated sins in the Sacrament of Penance, always taking us back no matter how bad our sins are. And what happens in the Sacrament of Penance? The very name of the Sacrament tells us exactly what happens: to be effective the Sacrament supposes penance. Not only are you there at the Sacrament recognizing your full submission to the Church and your dependence on the Sacraments for forgiveness, but you walk out of the confessional with an imposed penance.
You are also often reminded from this pulpit that you must not only fulfill that penance, but you must continually do penance, your own penance. You don’t just say a decade of the Rosary and say, “Well, I’ve done my penance. Now, I can go merrily on my way.” You must always have the spirit of penance for your past sins; you must live with it.
The central error of the Divine Mercy is that it promises lots of spiritual rewards with no requirement of penance, no mention of reparation, no mention of any condition.
Unfortunately, this corresponds very much with what Pope John Paul II wrote in the Encyclical Dives in misericordia. I do not recommend reading it to any of you, except the most prepared, because it has many misleading things. It re-echoes this mercy with no price, gifts from heaven with no requirements, God’s mercy with no mention of penance or reparation for sin whatsoever.
Anticipating that encyclical Pope John Paul II already in 1978, the very first year of his pontificate, set in motion the canonization of Sr. Faustina and the institution of a Divine Mercy Sunday feast. As I said before, both Sr. Faustina’s writings and the very idea of having a Divine Mercy feast day had been prohibited and condemned by two previous Popes.
Presumption in Sr. Faustina’s writings
The writings of the Polish Sr. Faustina herself, published in English in 2007, pose cause for concern. The work has 640 pages and transcribes frequent supposed apparitions and messages from Our Lord.
Faustina John Paul II divine Mercy
A new “save-yourself-without-effort” devotion
This long thread of statements supposedly from Our Lord to Sr. Faustina has some things that would make a correct-thinking Catholic very uneasy, to say the least. I will exemplify by taking a few quotes from her writings.
On October 2, 1936, she states that the “Lord Jesus” appeared to her and said, “Now, I know that it is not for the graces or gifts that you love Me, but because My Will is dearer to you than life. That is why I am uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.” (Divine Mercy in My Soul, The Diary of Sr. Faustina, Stockbridge, MA: Marian Press, 1987, p. 288)
How can we believe that Our Lord has united Himself more intimately with Sr. Faustina than with the Blessed Virgin Mary? At first, we might read this and think, “Oh, that’s beautiful.“ But later it may hit you, “Wait a minute, Our Lord united Himself more intimately with Sr. Faustina than with any other creature? Our Lady was the Immaculate Conception, but she was also His creature, she was created by Him as the rest of us were, albeit with the greatest exalted position free from original sin from the very beginning.”
And now are we expected to believe that Our Lord told Sr. Faustina that He is more united to her than anybody else, even the Blessed Virgin Mary, and certainly more than all the other Saints? This affirmation smacks of pride in itself, let alone the assertion that it came from Heaven.
This type of presumption is present in many other cases.
Our Lord supposedly addressed Sr. Faustina on May 23, 1937, with these words: “Beloved pearl of My Heart.” What bothers me about this is that it is pure saccharin. Look how Our Lady speaks to Sr. Lucia or to St. Bernadette. It is not as “beloved pearl of My Heart.” It is impossible to imagine Our Lord stooping to saccharin language. Our Lord is Christ the King, Creator of the universe, and ruler of all that is. He does not say things like “beloved pearl of My Heart.”
Let me continue. Then, He said: “I see your love so pure; purer than that of the angels, and all the more so because you keep fighting. For your sake, I bless the world.” (ibid., p. 400) First of all, except for the Blessed Virgin Mary, we are not free from original sin and, therefore, we are not capable of a love purer than the angels.
Nazi soldiers invaded Poland after Sr. Faustina announced a blessed world – above, they are marching on Warsaw
As for blessing the world, that might be fine. If we had one real saint in the world, then the Lord will give us blessings for that one real saint. This is not my objection.
My objection is that this revelation was in 1937; the world was on the verge of World War II, which Sr. Lucy had already been forewarned of by Our Lady at Fatima: if Russia is not consecrated, and man does not convert, then this big disaster will befall mankind for their evil ways and their sins.
At that moment, we were about to see that disaster descend from Heaven, yet Our Lord tells Sr. Faustina, “For your sake, I am going to bless the world.” Was World War II a blessing on the world? Since her native Poland did not go unscathed by the German invasion, it does not seem likely that He actually blessed the world.
Another example: Sr. Faustina claimed that Our Lord told her that she was exempt from judgment, every judgment – particular judgment and the general judgment. On February 4, 1935, she already claimed to hear this voice in her soul, “From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.” (ibid., p. 168)
Now, nobody but the Blessed Virgin, as far as I know, is free from the general and particular judgment. St. Thomas Aquinas, according to the pious story, had to genuflect in Purgatory before going to Heaven. I don’t know if this is fact, but it is a lesson for us that nobody is exempt from any kind of judgment.
And add to these examples the preposterous affirmation that the Host jumped out of the Tabernacle three times and placed itself in her hands, so that she had to open up the Tabernacle and place it back herself: “And the host came out of the Tabernacle and came to rest in my hands and I, with joy, placed it back in the Tabernacle. This was repeated a second time, and I did the same thing. Despite this, it happened a third time.” (ibid., p. 23) It makes it sound like a hamster that has gotten out of its cage. “Oh, no, here it is again. I have to go put this back now.”
How many times has the Church declared that the hands of a priest are consecrated to handle the Sacred Species, and what kind of lesson would you be giving to the world by this example of the Host leaping into her hands so that she had to place it back in the Tabernacle herself?
Our Lord does not contradict His Church by word or by gesture. And this would be a little bit by both. She related what happened, but the gesture itself would be Our Lord contradicting the Real Presence and everything it represents.
A lack of Catholic spirit
In short, the whole Divine Mercy devotion does not represent a Catholic spirit. The Catholic spirit is one of making constant reparation in penance for our sins, of praying for the graces of God, for the mercy of God in this life.
Let me close by saying that it is the background of this devotion that is questionable. You do not just institute a particular devotion with its own feast day based on something that has been condemned for very good reasons in the recent past.
When you look at the prayers of the Divine Mercy devotions, they are perfectly orthodox. There is nothing heretical or presumptuous in these prayers. But just remember the reason why it has been condemned and why we do not recognize Divine Mercy Sunday is because of its past, not because of the content of the prayers.
It is very important to know this, because it is one of many things that were brought back in modern times that were condemned in the past. And this is not a case of the Church changing her mind. It is a case of a representative of the Church doing something he should not be doing.
This Lent, I’ve been taking the subject of my meditations from Alban Goodier’s THE CROWN OF SORROWS. Pilate truly saw the innocence of our Lord, and he did try on several occasions to have him released. Why didn’t he? Was it his pride in being Roman? I couldn’t help but reflect that there are people who place love of country over that of God.
Anyway, I present the reading as found in the book. This is just one reading of many on the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. If you can find a copy of the book, I highly recommend it:
– “Behold, I bring Him forth…I find no cause in Him” –
“When the chief priests, therefore, and the officers had seem Him, they cried out, saying, “Crucify Him; crucify Him!”
Goodier: “From thenceforth Pilate sought to release Him.” The sentence seems out of place. Had not Pilate been seeking to release Him from the very outset? He had twice said that he would do so. Yet St. John clearly means something very particular by this renewed statement. Evidently this new charge, of “making Himself the Son of God,” and the dignity with which Our Lord had received it, had had a deep effect. There was something more than human in one Who through all this could remain so calm and commanding, Who could with such firmness act as the Judge of His judges, and yet would not move a finger in His own defense. Everything had gone in Our Lord’s favor; this last charge of all, that He was the Son of God, was confirmed by all that had gone before. Pilate would save Him if he could.
Now was the critical moment; the Jews must play their last card, must surrender their all to gain their point. For a moment it looked as if at this last moment they were about to be baffled. But Pilate, like every Roman, like every Englishman [like every American, etc.] like every man who is proud of an ideal, had the weakness of his strength. Whatever else he was, he was a Roman; attack him there, and there was no knowing what he might not be induced to do. He did not realize that to be a true Roman it was first necessary to be a true man. “Thou art not Caesar’s friend.” This was a revelation. He had been shielding a “King”; might this be construed as un-Roman? Jesus was innocent; He was a doer of good; He was there “out of envy”; but He had some kind of title which He claimed; was not that enough? Whatever else Pilate was, no slur must be cast upon his Roman honor.
The ruse succeeded; but at what a cost! “The chief priests answered: “We have no king but Caesar!” Speaking for their whole people, in the presence of Jews, Gentiles, and Our Lord Himself, these chief priests made a formal renunciation of their inheritance. It was not merely that they rejected Our lord; they no longer said they would not have Him to reign over them; their renunciation is more sweeping; “We have no King but Caesar.” They renounce their independence as a nation; they tear up the promise of God, cherished through the centuries, of the King to Whom was promised the throne of David His father; they were no longer the chosen people of God; they would sacrifice their birthright that they might compass their design; the Kingdom was taken from them, as Our Lord had foretold, and given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof.
Heads up! to all in the vicinity of the Infant of Prague Carmel in Traverse City, Michigan.
Click on the graphic for more illustrations explaining the meaning of the various parts of the TLM.
Infant of Prague Carmelite Monastery
3501 Silver Lake Rd.
Traverse City, MI
At 9 a.m on Easter Sunday, April 20, the Carmelite Sisters will be singing Gregorian chant and polyphony for the Missa Cantata to be celebrated by Fr. Peter Stravinskas in their beautiful new chapel. I believe this will be the first Easter TLM there since the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae.
From the notice received, I quote: “Gregorian Mass I Lux et Origo will be sung. We’ll have 6 servers. It will be the second Easter celebrated in our new chapel, and the first with our new crucifix and Infant of Prague statue. (The statues of Our Lady and St. Joseph are still in the studio.”)
First-timers need not fear. Handouts will be provided with the English translation of the Propers, and there will be faithful who will be seated up front to indicate when to kneel, sit, etc.
Also, Holy Rosary parish in Cedar is loaning the Sisters some Missal Booklets to help people who are not familiar with the EF. (God bless Father Libby!)
The Sisters are doing everything possible so that this Mass will be most edifying, and a beautiful experience in the offering of worship to God on the most glorious feast day of the Church!
Don’t be timid, good people! Get yourselves to the monastery and fill up that chapel to the last pew!
